Okay, I'm jumping the gun a bit here, but what the hell. Please bear with me.
Hopefully within the next few days (maybe a week) I'll begin posting images of my take on the TOS shuttlecraft. I've been greatly inspired by the work of FourMadMen and Phil Broad in their efforts to reconcile the three different shuttlecraft we saw onscreen: the filming minature, the fullsize exterior mock-up and the fullsize interior mock-up. It is indeed a challenge because the exterior was definitely a vehicle intended not to have standing room inside whille the interior mock-up obviously did (most likely to faciliate filming). Today that wouldn't be a problem and an appropriately sized interior could be built as MJ originally intended and filmied with ease.
Strangely, though, I find the standing interior makes more sense conceptually for an auxiliary vehicle that is meant to operate independently from the parent ship for extended duration. The interior is also consistent aesthetically with what we saw onboard the Enterprise.
One thing I've certainly noticed while studying Phil Broad's plans of the fullsize exterior mock-up is that MJ designed a vehicle with many intriguing details that I somehow missed all these years. The design certainly bears little resemblance to the shuttlecraft depicted in FJ's Technical Manual as well as numerous depictions of the vehicle over the years. For example the "nose down" stance of the craft as well as the hull flaring outward from bow to stern. And that the craft's elevation centerline is not parallel with the engine nacelles. Very interesting. It certainly isn't a simple box design.
One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out. It's quite apparent that the windows as seen on the interior mock-up are useless for piloting since one cannot see directly forward through them while seated. And if you lower the position of the windows on the exterior then it blatantly changes the face of the vehicle and it doesn't look right anymore.
I know they were intended to be windows in the conventional sense, but they just don't work in practice or even conceptually. A forward window for piloting on such a vehicle would serve very little practical purpose anyway. Better, I think, to utilize the existing technology already evident aboard the Enterprise. The three "windows" on the forward hull of the interior are not windows at all in the conventional sense but rather they're overhead monitors or viewing screens. And they work quite well that way angled downward towards to the pilot and navigator. Those monitors function much the same as the overhead screens on the Enterprise bridge as well as the main viewscreen. And as seen from the outside I see those three rectangular panels on the forward hull demarking where the shuttlecraft's space and planetary sensor arrays are situated.
Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.
Lastly, I apologize that my images will not be done in up-to-date cgi or CAD simply because I don't have any of those programs and I also don't know how to use them. *Sigh* Someday perhaps. Instead I'll be using oldfashioned hand drafting for my little project.
Comments?
Hopefully within the next few days (maybe a week) I'll begin posting images of my take on the TOS shuttlecraft. I've been greatly inspired by the work of FourMadMen and Phil Broad in their efforts to reconcile the three different shuttlecraft we saw onscreen: the filming minature, the fullsize exterior mock-up and the fullsize interior mock-up. It is indeed a challenge because the exterior was definitely a vehicle intended not to have standing room inside whille the interior mock-up obviously did (most likely to faciliate filming). Today that wouldn't be a problem and an appropriately sized interior could be built as MJ originally intended and filmied with ease.
Strangely, though, I find the standing interior makes more sense conceptually for an auxiliary vehicle that is meant to operate independently from the parent ship for extended duration. The interior is also consistent aesthetically with what we saw onboard the Enterprise.
One thing I've certainly noticed while studying Phil Broad's plans of the fullsize exterior mock-up is that MJ designed a vehicle with many intriguing details that I somehow missed all these years. The design certainly bears little resemblance to the shuttlecraft depicted in FJ's Technical Manual as well as numerous depictions of the vehicle over the years. For example the "nose down" stance of the craft as well as the hull flaring outward from bow to stern. And that the craft's elevation centerline is not parallel with the engine nacelles. Very interesting. It certainly isn't a simple box design.
One issue I intended to tackle differently is that of alligning the forward "windows" as shown from the inside and out. It's quite apparent that the windows as seen on the interior mock-up are useless for piloting since one cannot see directly forward through them while seated. And if you lower the position of the windows on the exterior then it blatantly changes the face of the vehicle and it doesn't look right anymore.
I know they were intended to be windows in the conventional sense, but they just don't work in practice or even conceptually. A forward window for piloting on such a vehicle would serve very little practical purpose anyway. Better, I think, to utilize the existing technology already evident aboard the Enterprise. The three "windows" on the forward hull of the interior are not windows at all in the conventional sense but rather they're overhead monitors or viewing screens. And they work quite well that way angled downward towards to the pilot and navigator. Those monitors function much the same as the overhead screens on the Enterprise bridge as well as the main viewscreen. And as seen from the outside I see those three rectangular panels on the forward hull demarking where the shuttlecraft's space and planetary sensor arrays are situated.
Anyway that's my take on it. And, yes, it can be considered a bit revisionist. But it just seems to work better in my view.
Lastly, I apologize that my images will not be done in up-to-date cgi or CAD simply because I don't have any of those programs and I also don't know how to use them. *Sigh* Someday perhaps. Instead I'll be using oldfashioned hand drafting for my little project.
Comments?